What's new

Indian-American Congressman backs Trump on troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

Yankee-stani

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Aug 22, 2018
Messages
8,100
Reaction score
1
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
US President Donald Trump Friday received unusual support from an Indian-American Democratic lawmaker on his reported plans for a substantial troop withdrawal from war-ravaged Afghanistan.

Congressman Ro Khanna, who was recently re-elected from the 17th Congressional District of California, said President Trump's instincts to withdraw from Afghanistan were correct.

RECOMMENDED VIDEOS
placeHolder.png

He said to end the security challenge posed by terrorism in the war-torn country, it was important to encourage local peacebuilding efforts and engaging regional actors such as India and Pakistan.

"In sum, Trump's instincts to withdraw are correct. But the tactical implementation matters. He needs to surround himself with people like George Shultz, Bill Perry, Larry Korb, or Ben Rhodes who can help him carry it out," Khanna said in a statement.

So far, he is the only Democratic lawmaker to support Trump on his reported move in Afghanistan.

The White House so far has refrained from making any comment on the move to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

An overwhelming majority of lawmakers have vehemently opposed the idea. They argue that this will embolden Taliban and make America unsafe.

Khanna, who has been a bitter critic of Trump, in an unusual statement said he supported a responsible withdrawal of American military forces from Afghanistan.

"If we hope to end the security challenge posed by terrorism, the answer is not an indefinite deployment of US troops in the region. Instead, we must have a robust, multilateral, and inclusive diplomatic initiative to encourage national reconciliation, local peacebuilding efforts, and the engagement of regional actors such as Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, and India," Khanna said.

The State Department needs a strategy to secure an inclusive and lasting peace settlement, a plan for the full withdrawal of US troops from the country and sustained support for nonmilitary peacebuilding solutions to secure any political settlement reached by the Afghan people, he said.

"We also need a short timeline for withdrawal so there can be a smooth transition, a sense of the intelligence platforms and networks that can replace them to guard against terrorist threats, and a plan on how we would act on actionable intelligence if terrorists posed a threat to our homeland," Khanna said.

He said the current approach of engaging in direct talks with the Afghan Taliban as a means of achieving a political solution to the conflict was good.

"After 17 years of war, we need a negotiated political settlement to the war that is acceptable to the Afghan people and allows the United States to end our involvement in war as soon as possible," he said.

"Over USD 43 billion dollars are currently being spent on Afghanistan each year and the Taliban now exerts influence or maintains control over 50 per cent of Afghan territory. This shows our military-first strategy and the surge is not working," Khanna added.

According to media reports, the White House has ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The White House has asked the Pentagon to look into multiple options, including a complete withdrawal, NBC News reported quoting two defense officials.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
 
. . .
good move , let afghanistan again go under sharia law of taliban .
 
.
good move , let afghanistan again go under sharia law of taliban .

They've been trying for almost 20 years to get rid of the Taliban, and it hasn't worked. The only option now is to throw in the towel and try asking them nicely to behave properly (I think economic rewards could motivate them).

If you disagree with the strategy you're welcome to suggest another.
 
.
They've been trying for almost 20 years to get rid of the Taliban, and it hasn't worked. The only option now is to throw in the towel and try asking them nicely to behave properly (I think economic rewards could motivate them).

If you disagree with the strategy you're welcome to suggest another.
In the decade the Taliban ran things. things were worse
 
.
In the decade the Taliban ran things. things were worse

I'm not discussing how good/bad their rule is, I'm talking about how NATO can deal with them. And it's quite clear that military force isn't working. You want Afghanistan to act upon your interests? Give them economic incentives, and if they don't cave in just isolate them. That's all you can do since you're not militarily capable of defeating them.
 
.
I'm not discussing how good/bad their rule is, I'm talking about how NATO can deal with them. And it's quite clear that military force isn't working. You want Afghanistan to act upon your interests? Give them economic incentives, and if they don't cave in just isolate them. That's all you can do since you're not militarily capable of defeating them.

half the population (non-Pusthuns) want nothing to do with them
this looks like a civil war type situation to me
 
.
half the population (non-Pusthuns) want nothing to do with them
this looks like a civil war type situation to me

Yes, but the side opposing the Taliban are not going to win. They're losing more men than they can actually manage to recruit. Not only that, but they constantly harass and mistreat Pashtuns (Afghanistan's largest ethnic group), and are engaged in systemised paedophilia that puts anything going on in Bradford or the Catholic Church to shame. They also haven't managed to bring Afghanistan peace or prosperity.

The Taliban, on the other hand, are able to reach out to non-Pashtuns by claiming that they belong to a pan-Islamist ideology and that the non-Pashtuns they kill are simply bad Muslims or not Muslim at all. Since Afghanistan is a deeply conservative country, this is a much more effective way of combating any stereotypes of the Taliban being a group for Pashtun nationalists (even though that's pretty much what they are). They can also say that they are acting against the foreign invaders whereas the NA are aligning themselves with them, even though other foreigners support them simply because of the fact that their backers haven't put boots on the ground. The Taliban can also boast about almost completely getting rid of Afghanistan's drug problem and finally bringing some sort of peace to the country during their rule.

The NA are fighting a losing battle. They don't have an edge in terms of propaganda or actual capability. All they can do is try to negotiate with the Taliban.
 
.
Yes, but the side opposing the Taliban are not going to win. They're losing more men than they can actually manage to recruit. Not only that, but they constantly harass and mistreat Pashtuns (Afghanistan's largest ethnic group), and are engaged in systemised paedophilia that puts anything going on in Bradford or the Catholic Church to shame. They also haven't managed to bring Afghanistan peace or prosperity.

The Taliban, on the other hand, are able to reach out to non-Pashtuns by claiming that they belong to a pan-Islamist ideology and that the non-Pashtuns they kill are simply bad Muslims or not Muslim at all. Since Afghanistan is a deeply conservative country, this is a much more effective way of combating any stereotypes of the Taliban being a group for Pashtun nationalists (even though that's pretty much what they are). They can also say that they are acting against the foreign invaders whereas the NA are aligning themselves with them, even though other foreigners support them simply because of the fact that their backers haven't put boots on the ground. The Taliban can also boast almost completely getting rid of Afghanistan's drug problem and finally bringing some sort of peace to the country during their rule.

The NA are fighting a losing battle. They don't have an edge in terms of propaganda or actual capability. All they can do is try to negotiate with the Taliban.

50% majority of the non-Pusthuns could wage devastating civil war if backed by the USAF
It took a month for 100 special operations troops and USAF to rout 50,000+ Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
It wasn't even close. With UAVs you do not even need the B-52s.

the moment the Taliban identify themselves they were dead meat
In the long run they have to deliver for the populace
 
.
50% majority of the non-Pusthuns could wage devastating civil war if backed by the USAF
It took a month for 100 special operations troops and USAF to rout 50,000+ Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
It wasn't even close. With UAVs you do not even need the B-52s.

the moment the Taliban identify themselves they were dead meat
In the long run they have to deliver for the populace

They've been trying to use force for almost 20 years. It's not working.
 
.
They've been trying to use force for almost 20 years. It's not working.


lethal force works. USA tried to build Afghanistan for the last decade. how long did the Sunni insurgents last against Shia militias ? Shia militias just start carving your body parts one by one. Sunni insurgents gave up and joined the surge for a few pennies.

if you go in destruct mode nothing will be alive
 
. .
Iran will not allow primitive animal people to come to power. Blowing up 3000 year old statues and killing Persian speakers and shia Muslims. Harboring global terrorists and worshipping primitive sawdis. We will genocide these bastards if the US leaves.

Sitting on the dirt and eating with your feet is stupid!....... Iran will kill this Afghani minority once the US leaves.

Genocide is the answer!
 
.
Iran will not allow primitive animal people to come to power. Blowing up 3000 year old statues and killing Persian speakers and shia Muslims. Harboring global terrorists and worshipping primitive sawdis. We will genocide these bastards if the US leaves.

Sitting on the dirt and eating with your feet is stupid!....... Iran will kill this Afghani minority once the US leaves.

Genocide is the answer!

civilized methods do not work with some people
 
.
Back
Top Bottom